M. Chandrashekar vs T.R. Aswathanarayana Rao, since dead by his LR''s and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.6.2005 passed in Ex. No. 282/1983 by the I Additional Civil Judge(Jr. Dn) Mysore C/CII Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) Mysore, has presented the instant memorandum of Civil Revision Petition.

The petitioner herein claiming that he is the Legal representative of Smt. Puttamadamma and Smt. Nanjamma has filed an application before the Execution Court u/s 114 read with 151 of CPC to review the order dated 7.2.2005. The said application filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before the Execution Court on 21st June 2005. The Execution Court, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant materials available on file and after affording opportunity to the petitioner has dismissed the same by assigning cogent reasons in paras-9 and 10 of the order, holding that, petitioner has no locus-standi to file such an application. In view of rejection of the application filed by petitioner by the Execution Court as stated above, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner Sri. B.S.Nagaraj at considerable length of time.

After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Execution Court as referred above, I do not find any error of law, much less material irregularity as such committed by the Execution Court in passing the said order. It is significant to note that, it is the case of the respondents before the Execution Court that petitioner is not the legal representative of Puttamadamma or Nanjamma and hence, he has no locus standee to intervene in the above proceedings and by a considered order on 27.8.2002, the Execution Court has rejected the affidavit filed by petitioner and till that date no revision or review has taken up against the said order and therefore, the Execution Court has observed that, petitioner cannot re-agitate against the said order once again under the guise of filing an application and the order passed by Execution Court is correct and that since the petitioner is no way concerned in the said order he could not intervene in the said proceeding in any matter. Further, it is the case of the respondents before the Execution Court that, legal representatives of the deceased Sri. T.R. Aswathanarayana rao have not been able to reap the fruits of the decree on account of unnecessary harassment by the petitioner and henchmen. The Execution Court, after critical evaluation of the relevant material available on file, the grounds urged by petitioner and the stand taken by respondents in their objections has rightly passed the well considered order, by assigning cogent reasons in paras-9 and 10 of the order stating that the petitioner has no locus standee to file the said application and hence, interference by this Court, at this stage is not justifiable. Nor I find any good grounds as such made out by petitioner to entertain this revision petition.

For yet another reason, the instant revision petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed at threshold is on the ground that, after careful perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that, petitioner has filed R.A. No. 51/1971 the same has been dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, petitioner has filed a Regular Second Appeal before this Court in No. 1047/1972 and the same has been dismissed and very conveniently, time and again, petitioner is filing application one after another and giving trouble to respondent-1A who is a senior citizen. Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, I think it is a fit case to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Hence, the instant revision petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits, with costs of Rs. 1,500/- to be payable by the petitioner to the Respondent -1 A, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If petitioner fails to pay the said cost of Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent-1 A, it is open for the respondent-1A to recover the same in accordance with law.